Posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
On consideration of the Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus and Application for a Stay of Proceedings, the petition is DENIED.
(Excerpt) Read more at caaflog.com ...
Why do you call anybody who disagrees with you a troll?
When you are called “troll” under those circumstances it simply means that you have won the debating point and your debating opponent has had no option left but to resort to the middle school playground level of attempted insult.
BS, you Obots can’t determine from that exchange between the illegal alien lawyer and Scalia that he has excluded jus sanguinis.
Before Scalia had a chance to expand on his words and thoughts of who is a natural born citizen, the batty Ruth “Baader-Meinhof” gang Ginsberg cut off the conversation when it got dangerously close to what constitutes a natural born citizen that she did not want to hear.
It's not an "ad hominem attack" when it accurately describes posters as trolls.
After months of BS copying & pasting nonsense without you being able the coherently or logically defend what you post with any credulity, it is no wonder that you are called a troll.
You need to change your name from Mrs Rogers to Missunderstands ... What you quoted is NOT a rejection of English common law supporting someone being born overseas as a NBS. They’re trying to build a case that the such common law doesn’t override local laws in the other country in question. They’re doing this so they can say that Chinese law (in spite of a treaty that was contrary to this principle) doesn’t override the 14th amendment’s creation of at-birth citizenship for aliens (or non-NBC’s) and has NOTHING to do with natural born citizenship. NOTHING.
Gray writes, “Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.”
It reinforces this thought by continuing beyond the Binney citation you quoted by then quoting Lord Malmesbury who wrote: “Those born in the territory of a nation are (as a general principle) liable when actually therein to the obligations incident to their status by birth. Great Britain considers and treats such persons as natural-born subjects, and cannot therefore deny the right of other nations to do the same.” What the Supreme Court is doing is recognizing the possibility of dual citizenship, but they do NOT reject English common law here. You’re not reading and comprehending the entire argument.
At the end of section IV, the court writes: “So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion.” This doesn’t reject common law, but ALLOWS for the possibility of dual citizenship. They HAVE TO DO THIS so they can say WKA is a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment (not natural born).
The very next sentence says, “Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents.” If the court was REJECTING common law, they would NOT admit that there are authorities who say such statutes (for being born overseas) are declaratory of the common law. Instead, they’re saying common law or not, the country where the birth occurred can exercise its own statutory authority over the citizenship of those persons. For natural born citizens, this type of conflict between laws of two nations would not exist. If Gray considered WKA to be a natural born citizen, he would not have had to have to built such a lengthy and convoluted argument to make him a citizen. Do you not understand that??
After months of BS copying & pasting nonsense without you being able the coherently or logically defend what you post with any credulity, it is no wonder that you are called a troll.
When birthers win a legal point in an actual court of law or get any member of Congress to take up the birther cause, then I’ll take the label of “troll” more seriously.
Until then, I’ll continue to let the cut and pasted “nonsense” words of folks like Karl Rove (who is out at this very moment raising millions of dollars for conservative candidates to take back control of Congress from the Obama Democrats) speak for me:
“If Tea Party groups are to maximize their influence on policy, they must now begin the difficult task of disassociating themselves from cranks and conspiracy nuts. This includes 9/11 deniers, ‘birthers’ who insist Barack Obama was not born in the U.S., and militia supporters espousing something vaguely close to armed rebellion.”
Karl Rove, February 17, 2010, The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page
Have a lovely evening, “conspiracy nut.”
By all means, wear the low brow “insults” around here with pride.
Red has just been crying into his beer again about why amateurs don’t win in court, or on alternate days, why the fascinating field of birth certificate raving is so under appreciated.
BS, you Obots can’t determine from that exchange between the illegal alien lawyer and Scalia that he has excluded jus sanguinis.
Before Scalia had a chance to expand on his words and thoughts of who is a natural born citizen, the batty Ruth “Baader-Meinhof” gang Ginsberg cut off the conversation when it got dangerously close to what constitutes a natural born citizen that she did not want to hear.
Justice Scalia is anything but a shrinking violet in oral arguments. If he had wanted to add a statement in support of Jus Sanguinis, he would have done it and he would have interrupted his closest personal friend on the High Court and his weekly lunch companion, Ruth Bader Ginsberg to do it.
And you understand that to be indigenous or natural born ... in both cases Vattel says you must be born in the country of parents who are citizens??
But Coke said that "indigenae," or "subjects born," could be the children of a noncitizen. And our Supreme Court accepted that statement and used the term "natural-born subject" in connection with it.
Yes, in England this is true ... and it was true for the colonies up through the treaty of 1783. What you're not understanding is that the Supreme Court in at least three different cases used or cited Vattel's definition of natural born citizenship, not Coke's definition of NBS, as determing natural born citizenship.
If Vattel disagrees with Coke, why should we accept the definitions of a Swiss philosopher over those of an English jurist?
Because of what I just noted. In spite of your lame attempt to marginalize Vattel, his work has been cited frequently by the SCOTUS, and in cases that have been decided within the last 10 years. You can go back to The Venus case where Justice Marshall cites Vattel by name about six times. He wrote, for example, "Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says 'The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.' Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett wrote, "At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." His definition of natural born citizen is only slightly reworded from Vattel's definition ... and he calls it 'the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar.' Ben Franklin had received a copy of Vattel's Law of Nations from the person who translated it, and then gave it to the members of the first Congress. George Washington had checked out copies from his library. Jefferson cited Vattel in his own writings. The influence of Vattel is significant, especially in terms of citizenship.
Oh, I’m not resting MY case, I’m resting yours. Cuz you don’t have one. I still have a serious interest in those cases.
The reason I’m dismissing your case is because you claim agreement by all the courts with YOUR point, however there has never BEEN A TRIAL...the merits of the case have never been heard in court.
Scalia is right that natural born citizenship requires Jus Soli (in addition to Jus Sanguinis), but he’s asking a question, not giving a definitive statement on what natural born citizenship is. You do see the question marks, right??
“That is jus soli, isn’t it?”
“It requires jus soli, doesn’t it?”
That will be the day when Obama goes down...when some court doesn't dodge or evade the merits of the issue.
Until then, I’ll continue to let the cut and pasted “nonsense” words of folks like Karl Rove
You have not been paying attention. Karl Rove lacks seriousness on FR or in the conservative world, especially backing that loser and RINO Castle and attacking Christine O'Donnell for Senate.
This includes 9/11 deniers, ‘birthers’
Rove better check out who the "9/11 deniers" are those are Democrats.
Have a lovely evening, “conspiracy nut.”
Sure will. Don't forget to kiss your Obama doll before you go to bed tonight.
By all means, wear the low brow “insults” around here with pride.
Red has just been crying into his beer again about why amateurs don’t win in court, or on alternate days, why the fascinating field of birth certificate raving is so under appreciated.
The only thing any person of even moderate intelligence needs to know about the Obama eligibility issue is that there are about fifteen well known conservative, constitution protecting law firms in this country who argue conservative, originalist issues before the Supreme Court and have attorneys who are admitted to the Supreme Court bar. Not ONE of those conservative, originalist, strict constructionist backing law firms has gone anywhere near ANY of the birther lawsuits.
I’m talking about The Center for Individual Rights, The Washington Legal Foundation, The American Center for Law and Justice, the Landmark Legal Foundation, Judicial Watch, The Federalist Society, the Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, The Institute For Justice, the Pacific Legal Foundation, The American Enterprise Institute’s Legal Center for the Public Interest or the Alliance Defense Fund.
For just one example, where is the Federalist Society with Obama’s constitutional ineligibility?
The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, most frequently called simply the Federalist Society, is an organization of conservatives and libertarians seeking reform of the current American legal system in accordance with a textualist and/or originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. The Federalist Society began at Yale Law School, Harvard Law School, and the University of Chicago Law School in 1982 as a student organization that challenged what its members perceived as the orthodox American liberal ideology found in most law schools. The Society asserts that it “is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be.”
The Society currently has chapters at over 180 United States law schools and claims a membership of over 20,000 practicing attorneys (organized as “lawyers chapters” and “practice groups” within the Society’s “Lawyers Division”) in sixty cities. Its headquarters are in Washington, D.C. Through speaking events, lectures, and other activities, the Federalist Society provides a forum for legal experts of opposing views to interact with members of the legal profession, the judiciary, law students, and academics.
“Would a natural born citizen have to take the oath of allegiance to the United States as Kawakita did? “
From the decision of the case:
“In 1939, shortly before petitioner turned 18 years of age, he went to Japan with his father to visit his grandfather. He traveled on a United States passport, and, to obtain it, he took the customary oath of allegiance.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/343/717/case.html
IIRC, that was a normal part of getting a visa at the time.
Ping to 774.
You can indulge yourself in the fantasy of his being president if you want...but I don’t have to...you can rant all you want. But to me this guy is nothing...the last president I had was named George W. Bush. Until somebody can prove otherwise that is my stance. The big problemo is that nobody has proven that he’s qualified to even sit in that chair. NOBODY, NADA!
What part of “IT REQUIRES JUS SOLI” didn’t you understand?
Ummmmm, your light bulb is still off.
You should read Edge919's post 771.
Is that all you got Ms. Rogers? Kawakita was not a natural born citizen as post 753 shows very convincingly.
They specifically say that common law does NOT make the children born overseas of citizens automatically citizens. They are denying, in section 4, the suggestion by the other side that citizenship comes naturally from heritage, not birth location. That is why section 4 starts:
“IV. It was contended by one of the learned counsel for the United States that the rule of the Roman law, by which the citizenship of the child followed that of the parent, was the true rule of international law, as now recognized in most civilized countries, and had superseded the rule of the common law, depending on birth within the realm, originally founded on feudal considerations.”
At its beginning, they set up what they are going to expound on. That is why you need to learn to read paragraphs and pages.
It finishes with:
“So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents. 2 Kent Com. 39, 50, 53, 258 note; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583, 659; Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356, 371.
Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional [p675] Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.”
And, as I have shown before, native born & natural born were regularly used interchangeably by the US DA & the courts.
No, post 753 that you are so proud of is bogus. He took an oath because everyone who wanted a visa to travel to Japan had to take one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.